RE: language design after Algol 60

"Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:56:22 +0000

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2018-04-12)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support bc@freeuk.com (bartc) (2018-04-12)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support bc@freeuk.com (bartc) (2018-04-12)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2018-04-13)
Re: language design after Algol 60 robin51@dodo.com.au (Robin Vowels) (2018-04-14)
RE: language design after Algol 60 costello@mitre.org (Costello, Roger L.) (2018-04-16)
Re: language design after Algol 60 robin51@dodo.com.au (Robin Vowels) (2018-04-17)
Re: Language design after Algol 60 robin51@dodo.com.au (Robin Vowels) (2018-04-18)
Re: language design after Algol 60 genew@telus.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2018-04-18)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:56:22 +0000
Organization: Compilers Central
References: <49854345-f940-e82a-5c35-35078c4189d5@gkc.org.uk> 18-03-103 18-03-042 18-03-047 18-03-075 18-03-079 18-03-101 18-04-002 18-04-003 18-04-004 18-04-024 18-04-034 18-04-041 18-04-046 18-04-050 18-04-063 18-04-064
Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="59651"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: algol60, PL/I, history, comment
Posted-Date: 16 Apr 2018 10:47:27 EDT
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US

Robin Vowels wrote:


> Dijkstra's comment is nonsense.


I am curious, why do you say Dijkstra's comment is nonsense?


> [assuming that the quotation is literally correct]


The quote seems to be correct:


https://books.google.com/books?id=JdziBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Finally,+although+the+subject+is+not+a+pleasant+one,+I+must+mention+PL/1,+a+programming+language+for+which+the+defining+documentation+is+of+a+frightening+size+and+complexity&source=bl&ots=5709gQOo9K&sig=AfrW2xb-WrcWKpmRAsfxufLS0F4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4od7S677aAhUHvFMKHSF3AcUQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Finally%2C%20although%20the%20subject%20is%20not%20a%20pleasant%20one%2C%20I%20must%20mention%20PL%2F1%2C%20a%20programming%20language%20for%20which%20the%20defining%20documentation%20is%20of%20a%20frightening%20size%20and%20complexity&f=false


[Read the page or so around the quote and you'll see that Dijkstra
thought Algol60, of which he was one of the authors, was too
complicated, because BNF made it too easy to specify syntax. As far
as I can tell, he wanted extremely simple languages to make it easier
to prove programs correct. But that, of course, is another swamp.
-John]


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.